Gaps in moderate plaque psoriasis management: A survey of Saudi dermatologists.
Dermatologists
disease severity
online survey
psoriasis
treatment
Journal
Journal of family medicine and primary care
ISSN: 2249-4863
Titre abrégé: J Family Med Prim Care
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101610082
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
16
09
2021
revised:
17
09
2021
accepted:
20
09
2021
entrez:
14
3
2022
pubmed:
15
3
2022
medline:
15
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There are many barriers that usually lead to under-treatment of moderate psoriasis patients, with subsequent unsatisfactory results and clinical outcomes. Given this lack of consistent guidelines on treating moderate plaque psoriasis patients, the aim of the current study is to define how Saudi dermatologists define and treat such cases in the real-world clinical setting. We conducted an online cross-sectional survey from May 2020 to October 2020, involving all eligible dermatologists working at different academic, governmental, and private sectors in Saudi Arabia. Finally, a total of 260 dermatologists were included in the final analysis; out of them, 140 (53.8%) were males and 120 (46.2%) were females. Regarding the tools used by participating dermatologists for diagnosis of moderate psoriasis, most of the participants (86.5%) used Body Surface Area (BSA), 7.3% used Physician Global Assessment (PGA), and 6.2% used Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). Cutoff scores for defining moderate psoriasis varied widely among surveyed dermatologists. The surveyed dermatologists reported that 46% of their patients with moderate plaque psoriasis were receiving biologics as their primary therapy, while 24.1% were receiving prescription topical treatment, 20.3% were receiving an oral systemic therapy, 4.9% were using over-the-counter topical treatment, and 4.7% were receiving phototherapy. There is a pervasive lack of consensus regarding the definition of moderate psoriasis, with reported wide ranges among the commonly used severity tools in psoriasis patients.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
There are many barriers that usually lead to under-treatment of moderate psoriasis patients, with subsequent unsatisfactory results and clinical outcomes.
Objective
UNASSIGNED
Given this lack of consistent guidelines on treating moderate plaque psoriasis patients, the aim of the current study is to define how Saudi dermatologists define and treat such cases in the real-world clinical setting.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We conducted an online cross-sectional survey from May 2020 to October 2020, involving all eligible dermatologists working at different academic, governmental, and private sectors in Saudi Arabia.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Finally, a total of 260 dermatologists were included in the final analysis; out of them, 140 (53.8%) were males and 120 (46.2%) were females. Regarding the tools used by participating dermatologists for diagnosis of moderate psoriasis, most of the participants (86.5%) used Body Surface Area (BSA), 7.3% used Physician Global Assessment (PGA), and 6.2% used Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). Cutoff scores for defining moderate psoriasis varied widely among surveyed dermatologists. The surveyed dermatologists reported that 46% of their patients with moderate plaque psoriasis were receiving biologics as their primary therapy, while 24.1% were receiving prescription topical treatment, 20.3% were receiving an oral systemic therapy, 4.9% were using over-the-counter topical treatment, and 4.7% were receiving phototherapy.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
There is a pervasive lack of consensus regarding the definition of moderate psoriasis, with reported wide ranges among the commonly used severity tools in psoriasis patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35280622
doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1207_21
pii: JFMPC-10-4519
pmc: PMC8884316
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
4519-4524Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2021 Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
There are no conflicts of interest.
Références
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016 Apr;30(4):569-75
pubmed: 26538533
J Drugs Dermatol. 2017 Aug 1;16(8):801-808
pubmed: 28809995
J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2010 Aug;3(8):20-6
pubmed: 20877538
Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2017 Mar;7(1):97-109
pubmed: 27905011
Am J Clin Dermatol. 2016 Feb;17(1):79-86
pubmed: 26547918
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jul 28;375(4):345-56
pubmed: 27299809
BMC Rheumatol. 2020 Jan 10;4:2
pubmed: 31938764
Arch Dermatol Res. 2011 Jan;303(1):1-10
pubmed: 20857129
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 Jul;65(1):137-74
pubmed: 21306785
Br J Dermatol. 2013 Jul;169(1):137-45
pubmed: 23387374
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 Jul;73(1):37-49
pubmed: 26089047
J Dermatolog Treat. 2018 Nov;29(7):658-663
pubmed: 29502473
PLoS One. 2016 May 11;11(5):e0153740
pubmed: 27168193
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015 Jun;29(6):1156-63
pubmed: 25346093
Arch Dermatol Res. 2013 Dec;305(10):899-907
pubmed: 23748949
Clin Rheumatol. 2020 Jun;39(6):1859-1869
pubmed: 31993888
Br J Dermatol. 2015 Dec;173(6):1387-99
pubmed: 26357944